US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2475
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- President Obama on Monday will announce a series of measures designed to reduce obstacles facing former prisoners reintegrating into society, including an executive order directing federal employers to delay asking questions about a job applicant's criminal history until later in the application process. Many states, cities and private employers have already taken steps to "ban the box," which refers to the checkbox on employment applications asking if the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime. However, some federal employers and contractors still ask the question. Obama's executive order will apply to federal employers, but not to contractors. Civil rights activists have urged Obama to propose the measure, noting that such questions can limit the ability for people with a criminal record to gain employment and get their lives back on track after prison. Advocates argue that those formerly in prison should be allowed to prove their qualifications for a job instead of being eliminated early in the process due to their criminal background. The issue has come up on the campaign trail, with all three Democratic presidential candidates pledging support for a "ban the box" policy. Obama will also announce other initiatives designed to improve rehabilitation and re-entry for former inmates, including education and housing grants, as well as partnerships between local municipalities and private companies that would provide jobs and training in technology. Source | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 03 2015 00:22 oneofthem wrote: well my judgement on newton vs einstein was just by looking at the two systems devised. newton's main work was on bodies in motion, which although revolutionary at the time is more of a work of technical cleverness. einstein's total envisioning is more rare of a quality, but maybe that was only made because of the state of the prior works, i.e. maxwell em vs newtonian mechanics. Well, each discovery was built on other people's discoveries. I don't think it's really necessary to compare Einstein, Maxwell, etc.-- all of them were really fucking smart. On the other hand, John Nash has a special place in my heart. When other people found a brick wall, they'd try and find some clever way over or around it, but they'd move on to something else if it didn't work out. Nash literally bashed the fucking wall down brick by brick with brute force even if it took him years. That kind of stubborness and dedication is insane. Moving away from mathematicians, there's other kinds of intelligence-- people who are amazing at music, Magnus Carlsen who is probably the greatest chess player ever, Marion Tinsley who was the best checkers player ever, etc. And then how would you even judge people with eidetic memory? | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
Let me ask you a question though. From your opinion, are people born with different intelligence-values (whatever they might be), or did they learn to be intelligent? edit: John Nash is a nice example for a smart person with a mental handicap. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Isn't there some guy with like a bajillion IQ (using that as a proxy for intelligence) who lives on a farm in the Midwest and hasn't really changed humanity? | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 03 2015 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote: Well, each discovery was built on other people's discoveries. I don't think it's really necessary to compare Einstein, Maxwell, etc.-- all of them were really fucking smart. On the other hand, John Nash has a special place in my heart. When other people found a brick wall, they'd try and find some clever way over or around it, but they'd move on to something else if it didn't work out. Nash literally bashed the fucking wall down brick by brick with brute force even if it took him years. That kind of stubborness and dedication is insane. Moving away from mathematicians, there's other kinds of intelligence-- people who are amazing at music, Magnus Carlsen who is probably the greatest chess player ever, Marion Tinsley who was the best checkers player ever, etc. And then how would you even judge people with eidetic memory? It's a social judgement that makes people consider that being good at chess or resolving a math problem is a way to judge the intelligence, or that even having eidetic memory is a proof of intelligence. But it is only one of the dimension that we, in our daily life, consider as "intelligence". Nash was schizophrenic, had difficult to interact with people in a "normal" manner - it is also part of intelligence, and in this regard he was completly stupid - while, as I pointed out before, trisomic people tend to have genius level of empathy. If intelligence is the capacity to adapt to information and situation, then one must agree that there are different kind of intelligence, and judging who is more intelligent between two people is like comparing orange and apple. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On November 03 2015 00:48 ticklishmusic wrote: Some people have more potential than others innately, but in the vast majority of cases the amount of noise generated by their surroundings obscures our ability to measure it I think. There's a quote I like from John Steinbeck's East of Eden about how you can't make a pig a racehorse, but you can make a very fast pig. The opposite is also true I guess. Isn't there some guy with like a bajillion IQ (using that as a proxy for intelligence) who lives on a farm in the Midwest and hasn't really changed humanity? Possible. But then it would be relatively easy to measure, wouldn't it? You got two cups (babies), both entirely empty (no knowledge) - how do you measure their potential? That's what science can't do (sadly). As i stated earlier, our only flimsy shot at measuring intelligence (IQ) turned out to be entirely pointless. So we can't point our finger on where intelligence is, what it is, how to measure it - if it even exist in the form we use to measure it subjectively. It's a social judgement that makes people consider that being good at chess or resolving a math problem is a way to judge the intelligence, or that even having eidetic memory is a proof of intelligence. But it is only one of the dimension that we, in our daily life, consider as "intelligence". Nash was schizophrenic, had difficult to interact with people in a "normal" manner - it is also part of intelligence, and in this regard he was completly stupid - while, as I pointed out before, trisomic people tend to have genius level of empathy. If intelligence is the capacity to adapt to information and situation, then one must agree that there are different kind of intelligence, and judging who is more intelligent between two people is like comparing orange and apple. Never thought i'd say that, but i'm totally in Camp WhiteDog on that one. Also, people here mistake knowledge and intelligence quite often, i don't think they have a connection. edit: worded that wrong, i meant "a knowledgable person is not necessarily an intelligent one, and the other way around". | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
On November 03 2015 00:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3nASKtGas Go Kasich! Well done, considering all (nearly all?) of those states that are screwed are governed by conservatives. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
This is fantastic. I think that criminals are less likely to become repeat offenders if they're actually "allowed" back into society... as in, they can find a job, they can earn a living, and they can get their shit together without being labeled as a pariah. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Republican presidential candidates have agreed a series of demands that would give them greater control of debates, as the party’s frustrated 2016 class works to inject changes into the nominating process. They are attempting to wrestle command from the Republican National Committee (RNC) and media hosts. Representatives from more than a dozen campaigns met behind closed doors for nearly two hours on Sunday night in suburban Washington, a meeting that was not expected to yield many results given the competing interests of several candidates. Yet they emerged having agreed several changes to be outlined in a letter to debate hosts in the coming days. A copy of the letter drafted by GOP lawyer Ben Ginsberg and given to the Washington Post on Sunday gives an idea of some of the stipulations that the candidates are hoping to make. They include automatic rebuttals if a candidate is mentioned; a lack of yes/no or hand-raising style questions; and a ban on reaction shots of the audience. The letter, which is written “on behalf of the 14 Republican presidential campaigns”, also asks for a commitment to not use shots from behind the candidates showing their notes; not to leave microphones on during breaks; and asks that the temperature in the hall be kept below 67 degrees. “The amazing part for me was how friendly the meeting was,” candidate Ben Carson’s campaign manager Barry Bennett, who hosted the meeting, said. “Everybody was cordial. We all agreed we need to have these meetings more regularly.” The most recent Republican presidential debate, moderated by cable TV channel CNBC in Boulder, Colorado, on Wednesday night, drew harsh criticism from campaigns and Republican party officials. Afterward, some candidates complained the questions were not substantive enough; others wanted more air time or the chance to deliver opening and closing statements. Source | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On November 03 2015 01:39 oneofthem wrote: newton vs einstein is kinda like von neumann vs grothendieck. i have a bias for higher lvl imagination So for Grothendieck ? Or not, it's like the worst clue you could have given imo. Newton invented the maths he needed for his theory, and integral calculus is such a great idea, I don't want to stress it too much, but still... It was in the air apparently, but it's not like Leibniz was an idiot either. Newton also had a total envisionning at the time, it was also it was viewed until... Einstein. And even today, a lot of scientist fantasy come from this era where Newton's science was the model. Calling Newton's work technical cleverness seems to lack a bit of historical perspective. If we're at name dropping, I'd go for Thucydide, Diderot, Kant, Proust and Arendt. Maybe Marx too ![]() | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Republican presidential candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wants everyone to know he is one tough cookie. He told Bloomberg News on Saturday that he eats nails when he wakes up — and then has breakfast. Bush was campaigning in Des Moines, Iowa over the weekend — along with GOP rival Sen. Marco Rubio (FL). Bush said he has "enough humility" to know he has to get better in his campaign. His struggling bid for the presidency resulted in a downsizing of his staff and slashing of his payroll. His campaign's chief operating officer, Christine Ciccone, also resigned. Bloomberg asked Bush if people were underestimating his ability to make a comeback in the GOP race. "They don't know me. They don't know me," Bush told Bloomberg. "I eat nails when I wake up, then I have breakfast." Bush also discussed his performance at the CNBC debate Wednesday and noted that he "felt it wasn't that good" because he didn't get to ask the right questions and didn't interrupt his opponents. Source | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2015 21:25 corumjhaelen wrote: So Einstein was smarter than Newton because he managed to conciliate two theories that Newton didn't know of because one was devised a century and a half after him and he was busy inventing the very other ? will be the final hijack but my reason was just about how hard each step was. newton invented a maths method to deal with motion problems but there were clear prompts for that and in all likelihood someone would have done it already. his 'model' was standard medium sized objects oriented intuitions formalized already by kepler etc. newton only gave themaths bias is for grothendieck | ||
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
And I'll judge Grothendieck's imagination the day I can understand anything he has done, which is very likely to be never. I'll leave it at that too, because this is starting to be very far from the topic, and it could get worse^^ | ||
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On November 03 2015 02:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Jeb! has officially become a character of his former self, and that's saying a lot: Source He doesn't even know himself: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/01/jeb-bush-says-he-was-unaware-of-rubio-powerpoint-deck/?_r=0 In an interview that aired on Sunday, Jeb Bush said that he was unaware of a PowerPoint presentation his aides put together raising questions about his rival, Senator Marco Rubio, volunteered that he’d “kill” for his father, and said he has questions about the use of the death penalty. | ||
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
Please, DNC... keep pissing off centrist boomers. Do it. It's a great idea. #ThanksDNC | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42755 Posts
| ||
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
The DNC doesn't want any kind of democratic input into the primaries at all. They are terrified. | ||
| ||